The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-09-06
HOW DOCTORS DISAGREE.
"A Review OF the Causes Which Threaten the
Success of the Congress.

| This city is rapidly filling up with physicians
in anticipation of the opening of the Information
al Medical Congress-, Monday. The attendance
of American physicians promises to be large
but the foreign element will be but sparsely rep
resented. Already mutterings are heard in the
hotel corridors regarding the marked absence of
distinguished physicians and the causes which
led to the best men practically boycotting the
congress being freely discussed. The opin-
ions seem almost as various as the 6isputants,
but the facts of the seem to be as follows:
The meeti ngs of the international Medical
Congress are triennal. Copenhagen having re-
ceived the scientists in 1884. At that meeting
DR.. John S. Billings, u. S. A., librarian to the
Surgeongenerals department, editor OF the In
dex Medicus, and well known as an original in
vestigator in than department. of
medicine, On behalf of a committee appointed
for the purpose, invited the congress to meet in
Washington this year. The claims OF other
countries for the honor of becoming the host of
the worlds physicians was advanced, but the
honor was finally bestowed upon the United
States. The invitation of which DR.. Billings
was the bearer was on behalf of the profession
of the.whole country and did not pretend to
emanate from any profession of physicians. Ac-
cordingly the committee of which DR.. Billings
was member, and which composed of
equally representative men, proceeded in virtue
of the powers bestowed upon them and in ac-
cordance with the custom of previous congresses,
to add to their num Der and to exert the execu-
tive powers with which they believed themselves
endowed.
The American Medical Association is supposed
to represent the regular or aloDathic physicians
of the country, although in reality its member
ship is only about 4, 900, while there about
SO 600 practicng physicians of the regular school
in the United States. Its meetings held
nually that of 1885 1.-THE after the invitation
to the congress to meet in Washington being
held in New Orleans.
The rsmoteness of that city from the medical
centers of the East resulted in the meeting being
almost exclusively composed of Western and
Southern men. The matter of the coming con-
gress was ventilated, and an opposition to the
executive committee which had it's affairs in
hand was speedily developed. The opposition
delegation from Philadelphia, and the causes of
the opposition were two-fold. The first
cause of complaint that the committee mad
voted its own members into the principal
Offices, and secondly. that in adding to it's mem
bership some thirty five ad ditional members it
had entirely ignored the claims of several West
ern States and had favored too greatly New
York, Philadelphia and Boston. A demand
made for territorial representation, and the
association assumed the right to review the
actions of the original committee, which it did
by dropping the thirty Eve additional members
and appointing thirty-eighr other representa-
tives covering most of the States and Territories
1t also decided that only members of its
association. of societies Estate and county, in
utilization Herewith, had any right to send dele
OBJECT
to bar out the New York new coders," i. e.,
members of the New York Medical Society, an
organization which practically permitted its
members to consult with homeopaths-an Of
Tense against the code of ethics. These decis-
ions of the American Medical Association were
protested against by the members of the com
mittee present, but Notwithstanding, were car
ried by a large majority.
Immediately on this action becoming known
majority of the original committee of eight
promptly resigned. stating first that the con-
a ira inn
medical politics mad place in it's affairs;
ondly, that as the invitation to the congress
emauated from the whole profession and not
from any individual body, that the American
Medical Association had no right to review the
acts of the committee. and. lastly that In max
ing its appointments the committee looked only
for the men who best represented American
medicine, irrespective of their location 1t also
pointed out that members of the American
Medical Association freely consulted with 'new
coolers" and it was therefore folly to exclude
them from the congress-.
Following the resignation Of the original COM
mittee the profession in Philadelphia promptly
placed themselves record. A meeting, of
which Alfred Stille. emeritus professor of prac-
tice at the University, was chairman, protested
against the limitation of the scope of the con-
gress and resolved that those who had been ap-
pointed to hold Office by the reconstructed com
mittee should decline to accept any office what
ever. Among those signing the resolutions
D. Hayes Agnew. Weir Mitchell, Roberts
Barthoow. John III. Packard, DaCosta, Duh
ring, Gross. Leidy, Pepper, Parvin and others.
ample. and the profession of the Hub stated that
They believed the action of the New Orleans
committee was fatal to the success of the con-
gress." and refused to fill any Offices. Oliver
Wendell Holmes. Francis Afinot, Bowditch,
Chad wick, Edes, Fitz and others, many of them
professors at Harvard united in this expression
of opinion.
Baltimore also took ND arms, and McLaue
Tiffany, McSherry, Atkinson, Chisholm and
Mckenzie declined Office and expressed their
disapproval of the new committees doings,
while in this city identical course was pur-
sued by Joseph Taber johnson. S. G. Busey. A
F. King S. w. Burnett and others, who stated
their belief that the action of the committee
calculated to bring the medical men of the pro-
fession in America into dsrepute.
Although the West was supposed to be pecu-
liarly favored oy the new deal, many of its
leading men refused to take Office. In Cincin-
natl Drs. Conner, Reeve, Whitaker and Raamy
followed their Eastern brethren while Engel-
mann and Hardaway, of st. Louis. and Nevins,
Hyde and others IN Chicago, also repudiated
the action of those whose alleged intention it
TO befrend them. 1t is not wise for a
iaymen to venture to judge the merits of case
so purely technical. but it is apparent on its
face that the physicians whose names
quoted among the foremost teachers, writers
and practitioners of the country, and would be
accented both in the United States and In
Europe thoroughly representative men.
The medical press was by unani-
nous in its opinion of the controversy and some
lively writing INDUCED in both sides.
The leading weeklies of New York, Boston and
philadelphia condemned the action of the New
Orleans meeting. while the Journal of the Amer
lean Medical Association was a powerful ally of
the victorious party. Some of the journals
charged that the .'kickers" at New Orleans were
led by a small lot of ''soreheads" whose claims
to recognition had been en- t3rely ignored by the
original committee. The British Medical Jour
nal referred TO 1.-THE hopeless division of the pro-
fession in America" a condition of affairs it
designated as .'lamentable" French and Ger
man journals followed in the same strain and
the effect of this has undoubtedly been to scare